Hero call?

[Hectorjelly]

Villain is bad.

History: This all occurs in less than 5 mins. He called a raise with A2s against me, flop 556 with a fd. Check check, T on turn he check calls. river j he bets I call, he has A2s for busted flush draw.

then I got QQ and raised, he called on button. FLop is AKx, check check. Turn K check check. I bet a blank river and he folded.

Then in a limped pot I bet the turn with nothing, he called. I bet a board pairing river and he raised, I had nothing and folded.

Very next hand utg raises, I have J9s and call on button SB who is fish from above calls. Flop is 39Q rainbow. Checked to me and I bet 4.50. Fish calls.

Turm blank 2 we both check

River offsuit. He goes all in for 38. I have middle pair.

Other history, I have never called an overbet on this site and won. There's always a first time though right?

[Bubbleking]

I think I fold here.

If he is bad, which I have no doubt he is, his line seems like a badly played flopped monster (2 pair +) which didnt get a chance to c/r the turn so panick shoved on the river to get max value. You only have 6ish invested and you are only getting even money on the call (well just over it). So he has to be bluffing roughly 47% of the time to make a call profitable? seems unlikely high but he is bad so you never know...

[ianmc38]

I'd fold pretty quickly. While his line doesn't make a huge amount of sense, I find fish like this overbet with the nuts far more than they overbet with bluffs. That said he obviously can't have a massive number of value hands here, but I still think I'd find a fold.

[FeetMagic]

Easy fold I would have thought.

[Guest]

Really easy fold.

[RoadSweeper]

Yea, I fold here pretty sharp.

[bogmonster1]

What percentage of the pot did he bet on the river in the busted flush draw hand?
Also, what was the river card in the final hand. All I see is river offsuit. could be missing something though.

[Winning!]

Seems a pretty trivial fold, we need to be good far too often and w/o any history of overbet-bluffs we just can't validate it. Closer on two-tone w busted FD's, but even then I'd fold since he's chosen a normal sizing with busted draws in past. Make a note, move on.

[Hectorjelly]

What percentage of the pot did he bet on the river in the busted flush draw hand?
Also, what was the river card in the final hand. All I see is river offsuit. could be missing something though.

I think he bet around 2/3 pot. River was an offsuit blank, can't remember the exact card but it was low and insignificant.

[Hectorjelly]

Make a note, move on.

Assuming I fold and he doesn't show, what note would you make? My note taking leaves a little to be desired.

[ianmc38]

That he overbet shoved a brick river on a fd/sd board after check calling the Q high flop.

Obviously we don't have any info about his holding, but it might show us something about tendencies if we ever get to see him showdown a hand/take the same line in a similar spot.

[Winning!]

"SBcl,c/cl,c/ck,4x-sh Q932Xr" or something similar, I'm only guessing river is ~4x. what Ianmc said mostly, it's only to remind us he overbet shoved river once facing potential weakness after a passive line. This vs his decent-sized bluff with whiffed FD earlier combined with future lines should give us a decent idea of his tendencies.

[Hectorjelly]

"SBcl,c/cl,c/ck,4x-sh Q932Xr" or something similar, I'm only guessing river is ~4x. what Ianmc said mostly, it's only to remind us he overbet shoved river once facing potential weakness after a passive line. This vs his decent-sized bluff with whiffed FD earlier combined with future lines should give us a decent idea of his tendencies.

But what does that note tell us given we never find out his hand? I already have him down as a weird fish, noting a weird line he took with a hand of indeterminate strength doesn't really tell me anything more does it?

[Hectorjelly]

I was going to fold here, but decided to think about the hand for a while. I had a good look at the board and couldn't see any big hands the fish could have. Now, it's a fish, so all 2 pair's are possible, or something weird like AQ; but there are very few big hands that might play this way. There are tonnes of hands he might want to turn into bluffs though, and I know he is annoyed at me. My thinking was that he may well think the only way to get me to fold was to go all in, since I called his normal bet last time when he was bluffing. I called and he had 26o, for no pair and no draw on the flop.

At a guess I think this makes me 1 for 7 in calling overbets, so I really can't say that this was a good call.

[imidg]

Really bad call,seeing that this guy is a fish or more likely a manic,
calling with middle pair is not a wise move.
Surely you can find a better spot to get his money.
i wonder what notes the other players made about you after your call

[Hectorjelly]

Really bad call,seeing that this guy is a fish or more likely a manic,
calling with middle pair is not a wise move.
Surely you can find a better spot to get his money.
i wonder what notes the other players made about you after your call

Every line in this post is wrong

1) If he is a maniac it actually becomes an easy call.

2) Calling with middle pair is not a wise move is a statement that makes no sense; unless you mean that you should never call any bet with middle pair no matter what the circumstances, in which case you are laughably wrong. You could mean that you shouldn't call in this instance, but in that case your sentence is constructed incorrectly. (And also reads horribly)

3) This is utterly erroneous logic. To be fair to you, it is nonsense that is often peddled on poker forums. This bet exists in a vacuum, it is either + or - EV. The fact that better spots may come up later is irrelevant, assuming we are not going to go broke soon, which I'm not. In fact, since the fish doesn't even have a full stack, if he wins this hand I lose less expectation in the long run than the actual EV I may give up, since I will be doubling him up to a stack from which I can expect to get back a relatively high percentage of the time. Also, there are four other people at the table who are liable to take his money before I do.

4) Ok technically this sentence isn't wrong, however the thinking behind it is. Firstly, I'm currently happy to fold to almost all overbets; if players make a note that I call them sometimes they will do them more with their monsters and less with bluffs; this is great for me since I almost never call them anyway. Secondly I'm guessing that you think other people will think this is a fishy call, they will note me down as a fish; and then make incorrect decisions about be given that I'm almost always the best player at the table at these stakes. Thirdly, what will actually happen is that the good players will realise why I made the call, and not actually bother making a note since the hand is in some senses relative standard. (They might make a note to try and avoid tangling with me, which doesn't affect things too much anyway). Silly fish makes silly bet, reg makes call. God only knows what people who don't understand why you would call here make as notes, but who cares; because they are the fish

[imidg]

Every line in this post is wrong

1) If he is a maniac it actually becomes an easy call.

2) Calling with middle pair is not a wise move is a statement that makes no sense; unless you mean that you should never call any bet with middle pair no matter what the circumstances, in which case you are laughably wrong. You could mean that you shouldn't call in this instance, but in that case your sentence is constructed incorrectly. (And also reads horribly)

3) This is utterly erroneous logic. To be fair to you, it is nonsense that is often peddled on poker forums. This bet exists in a vacuum, it is either + or - EV. The fact that better spots may come up later is irrelevant, assuming we are not going to go broke soon, which I'm not. In fact, since the fish doesn't even have a full stack, if he wins this hand I lose less expectation in the long run than the actual EV I may give up, since I will be doubling him up to a stack from which I can expect to get back a relatively high percentage of the time. Also, there are four other people at the table who are liable to take his money before I do.

4) Ok technically this sentence isn't wrong, however the thinking behind it is. Firstly, I'm currently happy to fold to almost all overbets; if players make a note that I call them sometimes they will do them more with their monsters and less with bluffs; this is great for me since I almost never call them anyway. Secondly I'm guessing that you think other people will think this is a fishy call, they will note me down as a fish; and then make incorrect decisions about be given that I'm almost always the best player at the table at these stakes. Thirdly, what will actually happen is that the good players will realise why I made the call, and not actually bother making a note since the hand is in some senses relative standard. (They might make a note to try and avoid tangling with me, which doesn't affect things too much anyway). Silly fish makes silly bet, reg makes call. God only knows what people who don't understand why you would call here make as notes, but who cares; because they are the fish

Dont see the point of posting this hand its not even close.
The other 7 hands when you were wrong would be more interesting
Just one more thing imho calling overbet shoves with middle pair is -ev